The Saskatchewan Schools Question

 

I was startled when friend Xerxes framed the current debate over SOGI (sexual orientation and gender ideology) in the schools as a matter of children’s “trans” rights over parents’ rights. After all, the parents marching are concerned about the introduction of gender ideology in the schools, and discussion of sexuality in general. This has nothing obviously to do with being either a boy or a girl, straight or gay.

Nevertheless, that is how it was framed by a court, in trying to put a stay on Saskatchewan’s policy that parents must be informed and consent if a child “changes their pronouns.” A recent CBC “At Issue” panel took this as a given. They spoke only of whether it was in the political interests of the federal Conservatives, or conservative parties at the provincial level, to oppose children’s human rights. And of course their argument was that it wasn’t. After all, voters, including “ethnic voters,” were concerned with pocketbook issues, not such distractions. 

Never take political advice from your adversaries. There couldn’t be a more important or more powerful issue for conservatives, in my opinion. Decent people care more for their children’s future than for their own welfare. This is the hill on which a parent is ready to fight, and, if necessary, die. In fact, it is the appeal on which young men do usually go to war: to protect the hearth, the women and children back home.

But let’s extend that logic. Let’s say it is a child’s human right to decide they are a boy and not a girl, without their parents having anything to say about it. If a child has a right to decide such things it must follow that society has no right to require them to attend school in the first place. This is slavery: they are being forced to work, told what to do at every moment, and given no pay. How is that not a violation of their human rights?

Child labour laws must also be abolished as unconstitutional. A child must have the right to earn a living.

In school, if parents have no right to input on the curriculum, certainly society has no right. The children must decide what they want to learn about, or indeed to do, today. Schools and teachers must demonstrate that any discussion of sexual orientation or gender is prompted by the children themselves. 

But this must also be true for reading, writing, or arithmetic. It must also be a child’s human right to decide for himself or herself, without coercion, whether 2 plus 2 equals 4; whether gravity ought to apply to them; or whether their spelling of a word is the best one.

They also have the inherent right to choose their teachers, and dismiss them if dissatisfied. 

If the left is not prepared to be consistent here, we must suspect an ulterior motive.

Could it be to advance the notion that even small children have the right to consent to sex in any form? Certainly looks like it.

The Need for Fathers

http://www.christianpost.com/news/from-father-knows-best-to-father-doesnt-matter-98666/

There is a basic principle here: mothers were created to provide for the child's physical needs. Fathers were created to provide for the child's spiritual needs. No father means a catastrophe for the soul.

Demographic Doom and How to Stop It

World Birth Rates, 2008, Wikipedia. Blue is bad.

Demographically speaking, and leaving aside all other issues, Western Civ is committing suicide. We have almost stopped making babies.

What is to be done? Some argue that, on the basis of all past history, we are already past the point of no return. But there are some obvious steps that might be taken. Most of them are steps that should be taken on grounds of human rights, equality, or humaneness in any case.

First, and most obviously, make abortion illegal. In the US, for example, this would boost the number of births by about 30%. Besides, of course, the matter of a right to life. Almost solves the problem by itself.

Number and rate of abortions in US to 2005. Wikipedia.

But we also have fewer marriages than we used to and a less stable family life. Without these, children are less likely and less advisable; a man, in particular, could find himself with huge liabilities and nothing but loneliness to show for it. Even if born, children from non-intact families are not going to get as promising a sendoff in life.

To support marriage, the first and most obvious step is to make adultery illegal. Indeed, we probably should make all sex outside of marriage illegal. As it everywhere used to be, until quite recently. We need to end no-fault divorce; if we do not, marriage is an unenforceable contract, and in an unenforceable contract, the innocent parties are always the ones who suffer. We need to outline the responsibilities of husband and wife under this contract, so that neither can be held to ransom; and these responsibilities must be fair and balanced. Sort of like they were in traditional marriage. If individuals want to enter into alternative agreements by mutual consent, fine.

We need to reform laws on child custody; at present, the wife always gets the children and the house, and the husband always gets the bills. This is obviously unjust, and an obvious disincentive to men to ever marry. It borders on the classic definition of slavery.

What would be fair? Either, whoever pays the bills gets to decide custody—“user pays,” natural justice—or the Muslim practice, in which the mother automatically gets custody up to a certain age, and the father after that age. Say seven--the traditional age of reason.

"Affirmative action," aka systemic discrimination, besides being inherently unjust, is also harmful to the family specifically. We know, for example, that the supposed “pay gap” between men and women is really a marriage gap. Without affirmative action, employers gave family breadwinners higher pay than either single men or women. This made good sense for the employer—married, single-paycheque workers are more reliable, more inclined to take orders, can put in more hours, and are more committed to staying on. We need to end all affirmative action programs to permit this to return. As with all discrimination, it must and will end as soon as government gets off the field. A free market ensures this.

The oppression of women by patriarchy in the traditional marriage. "Married life," 1918.

It should be obvious by now, if it wasn’t from the start, that the greatest cause of the demographic decline of the West is, in a word, feminism. By its nature, it is destructive to family life and to the interests of children; leaving aside entirely the interests of men. Because of this, it is detrimental to the overall interests of society, to the greatest good to the greatest number, even if it has been advantageous to women in particular (itself a debatable question). Yet the proponents of this doctrine have been heavily subsidized by public money all along. This is madness, as well as being obviously unjust. Public money should be pulled from all feminist organizations, and at the same time from all other special interest groups lobbying for one particular segment of the population. Any time the government funds such groups, it is discriminatory.

For my part, I would also want to pull all public money from the social sciences, with the possible exception of economics. The social sciences by their nature seem to always become no more nor less than lobbying groups for this or that special interest; and they generate no real knowledge.

We also need to deregulate daily family life. At present, the web of complex, illogical, and unpredictable regulations makes having a child a serious legal liability. Child seats, bicycle helmets, bans on spanking, social workers pulling children because their parents smoke or belong to the wrong political party. Getting rid of social workers is a start—removing public money from the social sciences would mean the government hires no social workers. But most of these regulations also should go. Parents may or may not love their children, but they are far more likely to love them than the state is. Giving advice should logically be the limit of the state’s involvement; if funds permit, giving out free car seats, bicycle helmets, or nutritional lunches to the poor. And help for runaways.

Finally, some parents may be deterred from having children because of the growing costs of, and growing need for, higher education. This does not actually seem to be a major factor—Germany has free post-secondary education, and its birth rate is still cratering. But it also makes sense on grounds of sheer equality and of ensuring that the nation maximizes its productive potential. Post-secondary education should be fully covered by vouchers at public expense, at least for the brightest students.

Might this be too expensive? No. First because you can limit the number of vouchers to match the funds available, and second because the increased earning potential over a lifetime of those students who receive the vouchers should more than return the public investment in future taxes.

Is any of this going to get done? Probably not. No politician dares to go against the desires of organized interest groups for the sake of the common good. If he does, he is most often weeded out at the next election, lacking election funding and volunteers and facing bad press.

It would take a moral revolution first. 

Dr. Helen » Female Teachers give Boys Lower Marks

Dr. Helen » Female Teachers give Boys Lower Marks:



This study hints at a larger point. Male teachers mark students on the basis of their performance; female teachers mark students on whether they like them or not. Constitutionally, women have been shaped by God or blind evolution to be fiercely partisan protectors of their young. They remain fiercely partisan by nature. This makes them ill-equipped to make objective, fair minded judgments. If they decide they like you, you can do no wrong. If they decide they do not like you, you can do no right.

This of course is the obvious explanation why women have not traditionally, in any known human society up to the present, been put in positions of authority over others.

Even feminists—especially feminists—now admit that men and women are not interchangeable but for the dangly bits. Women are better at some things, and men are better at some things.

Women are better at looking after children, because of their fiercely partisan instincts. This would also make them good nurses, for example, or, say, receptionists. They will protect their charge, even beyond what is reasonable. Men are better at leadership roles, because of their lack of partisan instincts. They will be fair, and, if necessary, judicious with scarce resources.

Beginning, then, actually, with leadership of the family. It follows immediately from this that the man is the natural choice in that role. Not to mention roles like judge, teacher, manager, police officer, and so forth. Individual women may excel here, but as a group, it is only to be expected that men will usually be better choices. If we have rough equality, let alone feminine dominance of such fields, we have a serious distortion, and probably a serious problem.

You may think it is demeaning to women to say they are best suited to the role of motherhood and looking after the children.

No; rather, to think that is demeaning to children. That is like saying only the present matters, not the future.

Sigmund Freud Was in Denial

Sigmund Freud was in denial about the central drama of family life, and perhaps the dirtiest secret of human civilization. Freud claimed that children essentially all wanted to kill their parents—kill Dad, sleep with Mum, or kill Mum, sleep with Dad. But the plain message of both history and story is just the reverse: parents essentially all want to kill their children.

Goya: Saturn devours his children.

Freud missed this even in the Oedipus cycle. In the story, after all, Oedipus has no desire whatever to either kill his father or sleep with his mother. Both happen by mistake, and he is utterly appalled. But Freud entirely glosses over the fact that Oedipus's father deliberately tried to kill Oedipus in the first place—leaving him exposed to die on a mountainside.

And, while parricide was essentially unheard of, then or now, and considered unspeakably evil, the exposure of unwanted infants was perfectly acceptable, then and, in the form of abortion, now. It was standard practice not only in Greece, but in pre-modern China and Japan. The ritual killing of children was everywhere among the nations surrounding Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures; the Romans report is as prevalent later in Carthage. It seems to have been the standard everywhere before the advent of ethical monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). We see survivals and echoes in the story of Abraham and Isaac, or indeed of Jesus as the sacrificed Son of God.

Rembrandt: Abraham and Isaac

In Greek mythology, the motif is absolutely primordial: Kronos/Saturn devoured his children. Tantalos sacrificially killed his son Pelops. Jews were suspected of killing Christian children in order to make their Passover matzohs. Herod killed all the male children; and so did Pharaoh. Atreus murdered the children of Thyestes and fed them to him. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia. Romulus and Remus, founders of Rome, were left exposed to die, but rescued by a she-wolf. Everywhere, the motif of child-killing is present, and primordial, at the beginning of every story.

Moloch

We are all looking the other way on this, and have been most of the time for millennia. But it simply makes sense. It is not just that we all want unrestricted access to sex without having to worry about the responsibility and expense of children. It is not just that children can sometimes be annoying. The child represents the mortality of the parent—it represents life going on without him or her. And so there is a kind of sympathetic magic that says, if you kill the child, you will live forever. If the child lives, his life replaces yours. This is a sort of existential truth, and so ever in the back of our minds. And it is explicitly the math propounded by Gilles de Rais,who killed an uncounted number of children in late Medieval France.

Gilles de Rais, Satanist.

It is perhaps also behind the many “hazing” or “coming of age” rituals of many cultures, which seem unnecessarily cruel. Circumcision is the least of them. The long years of schooling are perhaps the worst. If they do not kill and eat them, adults at least seek to punish the young for their existence, to get a bit of their own back.

To be clear, most parents are good to their children, and self-sacrificing. There are maternal and paternal instincts, thankfully, that work against this dark urge, not to mention the influence of religion and conscience. But I would feel a great deal more confident about our treatment of children generally if we openly acknowledged this dark history and tradition. It seems sinister in itself that we do not. It is perhaps the great cause, not only of our time, but of all time.

Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

or:

Are You Smarter than a Five-Year-Old?


Children today are not always taught the old fairy tales, the old nursery stories. Indeed, there is a systematic campaign in some quarters not to teach them. Too often, they are not politically correct; they have no place in the common Marxist/”cognitive science” agenda to alter the culture and control thought for political purposes.

But mostly, we just don't understand them, and don't get the point. I recall in grad school the professorial assertion that they were products of the human unconscious, mostly of psychological interest; the argument was over whether they were truly “pure,” or “mixed with ego.”

No kidding—apparently they were written by people when they were unconscious. I wonder if Hans Christian Anderson realized he was asleep?

Apparently, too, they made no more sense to the Freudians and Jungians than the contents of a typical dream.

Yet fairy tales and nursery tales are the encapsulated wisdom of mankind. In this, the Marxists are partly right: they are our initial social programming. Cultural literacy is an issue here; but more than that, without our fairy tales, we lack our user's manual for life, and are doomed to repeat all our ancestors' worst mistakes, without benefit of their prior experience.

Which, of course, predictably, is what is commonly happening these days, since we have largely forgotten them.

Because of global warming, for example, as we all know, the world is going to end. A correspondent wrote recently, “we are spitting ourselves out... of existence.” Before that, we were going to destroy the world with overpopulation, or pollution, or ozone holes, or resource depletion; we are still running out of oil, and water. But in fact, even in the worst case scenario, even if we grant that it is completely proven, there is no real probability that global warming could end human life on the planet. Nor, realistically, could overpopulation. We ought by now to realize that the idea that “the end of the world is nigh” is almost a human instinct, and we ought accordingly to be skeptical of any such assumptions, ever.

But isn't that the moral of the story of Henny-Penny? That foolish people are always prone to stampede into such panics, and that this makes them prey to any unscrupulous person ready to exploit this instinct for his own ends? Any child who was paying proper attention during Henny Penny's sad tale should be proof against millennial con games of all sorts--including those used so skillfully by charlatans like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

How about the laments of feminists? Many of us have accepted their claims following the simple logic that, if there were not something wrong with their current lot in life, they would not be complaining. This is a common formula throughout the feminist ethic, and the victimhood game more generally: if a woman feels oppressed, or feels threatened, or feels harassed, ipso facto, obviously, she is. Recognized “victim groups” have gotten quite far on the same formula—believing it, to be fair, completely, themselves.

But this simple logic should, in a properly-educated child, be immediately tempered by the story of the Princess and the Pea. It is, instead, precisely those most used to privilege who will complain most loudly of their lot—for they are those least inured to oppression, threat, harassment, or discomfort of any kind. One who has always been a slave—why and when should he dare take it into his head to object?

Accordingly, recent immigrants from South Asia, Africa, or the Arab world complain loudly of the discrimination they have faced, here and at home, and are given affirmative action programs. But these are wealthy members of the upper class in the countries they come from. Did the dirt-poor Irish, Polish, Ukrainians, or Armenians of two or three generations ago complain similarly? Just the reverse—because they really were poor, and really did come from a history of oppression.

Missing this important insight, we tend to systematically increase the privileges of the most privileged, and the oppression of the most oppressed, all the while believing we are doing the opposite.

And how much of the world's current folly could have been avoided if only a five-year-old who knew the story of The Emperor's New Clothes had been consulted? It has been rightly observed that the craziest things of all are those things commonly believed by academics: global warming, Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, postmodernism, affirmative action, political correctness, speech codes, queer studies, Fascism in its day. Most are based on a simple logical fallacy that should be apparent to a casual observer within a few minutes. The Emperor's story explains succinctly why this is entirely likely to be so. If it is possible for any intellectual phony or slacker to convincingly present something as “believed by all the best authorities,” then, even if we personally suspect it makes no sense at all, most people who want to appear intelligent and well-educated will pretend to believe it as well, and assert it with that much more energy to avoid the suspicion that they do not really get the point. Anyone who becomes an academic, in turn, considering the hard slog it requires, is probably deeply invested in projecting the idea that they are unusually smart, and deeply insecure about it. The child who truly understands this is protected against most such nonsense, and knows enough to think for himself.

Aesop's Fables, of course, are full of such lessons. The perpetual urge for a big, powerful government with detailed laws and regulations to impose proper order upon us all is well analysed in the fable of King Log and King Stork. The scapegoating of “rich corporate interests,” “rich capitalists,” “rich Jews,” and so forth, and the notion that governments can pay for everything by simply confiscating thier wealth, has been a common fallacy, or con job, in Marxism and well beyond. Hitler, Mugabe, Amin, all tried it. Most left-leaning governments base their core policies on it, in milder form. All with eventual results easily predicted by any child who knew the tale of the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.

And the apparently shocking, unheard-of notion that scoundrels might take the chasuble of priesthood in order to exploit the vulnerable? It should not so surprise anyone who was once read the story of the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. They would be far less inclined, as children, to fall for it; nor would they be inclined as adults to suppose it reflected somehow on the truth of the Catholic faith. Any more than the wolf's actions reflected on the true nature of sheep. How cockeyed is that?

We will probably never end the horror of child abuse. But our present efforts, besides being terribly expensive, are probably also making matters worse, by scapegoating fathers, by weakening families and by handing children over to professional bureaucrats who necessarily have no special feeling for them. Here's a perfectly cost-free measure we all can take: any child with access to nursery stories would at least be partly armoured against emotional abuse, by far the worst aspect of the problem. They would know the dangers of evil “step-parents,” and what they are capable of. They would understand that parents do not always love their children. They would have understood that parents can also envy their children. They would have learned that the fault was not necessarily theirs, and understood that there was still hope for the future. This is indeed one of the most common lessons of the nursery tales: consider Cinderella, or Snow White, or Rapunzel, or the Ugly Duckling.

Sexual abuse of children, pedophilia, is another hot topic currently. Want to “street-proof” your kids against sexual abuse? What could better “street-proofing” than the stories of Hansel and Gretel, or Little Red Riding Hood? The nursery tales are even far more realistic than modern treatments as to its probable source. Don't even trust grandma--you never know...

Sadly, these lessons are largely or completely lost in modern retellings. In the versions most common nowadays, everything scary or violent has been stripped out, supposedly to protect little ears from any possible hint that all is not wonderful in this world. It isn't. Real wolves are not huggable. In doing so, we are in fact setting our children up for all the real horrors the stories only ask them to imagine.

Of course, the politically correct will object that our nursery tales are only about our own culture; they are no longer “appropriate” for a globalized, multicultural, world. Perhaps they are cultural imperialism, in a multicultural classroom; perhaps they teach intolerance.

Nothing could be further from the truth: only academics could believe this. Nursery stories delight in that which happened not only “long ago,” but “far, far away.” As a result, they systematically encourage multiculturalism, globalism, and an interest in other cultures. Of all forms of literature, they are the most open to assimilating from other cultures. Few familiar English nursery tales are originally English: Grimm is from Germany, Anderson from Denmark, Lafontaine from France, Aesop from Greece, Uncle Remus from Africa, the 1001 Nights from Arabia, Persia, and India. The Nightingale is transparently from China, and the original Cinderella lived in Korea. Folklorists find near-identical stories told in areas and cultures as widely dispersed as Tajikistan and Tonawanda—among the Iroquois Indians.

Besides being of vital importance to individual children, and to the adults they become, this stratum of nursery wisdom could, if emphasized in our education systems, actually become an important element of international, and indeed global, understanding.

Make sure your kids don't leave home without it.

Let's Stop Foreigners from Marrying and Having Children!

A casual reader of this blog reports herself “dismayed” by my post on May-December marriages—or “child brides,” as most prefer to call it. She refers me to a UN web site titled “Child Marriage Fact Sheet.”


So let's examine the facts, one by one:

“Married adolescents are typified by:

large spousal age gaps.”

Never mind the mangled grammar--just note that this is cited, without explanation, as a problem with the marriages. It is simply a strong expression of prejudice.

“limited social support, due to social isolation”

If this is a concern, and it should be, our efforts should be fully directed to introducing the practice of child marriage into the First World. Social isolation is an endemic problem in the developed West, and it is largely due to separation from the extended family. By contrast, a child bride in the Third World has just doubled her number of close relatives. In most cases, they will all be living close by.

“limited educational attainment and no schooling options.”

In other words, the child bride has managed to escape years of unpaid labour. This sounds like an advantage to me—but probably isn't. There's little chance she could have afforded to go to school in any case. Not that school would have been any use to her--it would prepare her for jobs that do not exist.

“intense pressure to become pregnant.”

Anyone who has actually known a real girl or woman knows that women want children. Two-year-olds will play with dolls. Women without children will treat a dog or cat as one. The chance to have children before other women is a significant advantage of the practice, for women.

For some reason, we enjoy torturing our youth by denying them marriage and responsibility until long after puberty. And then we wonder why they are so difficult during those teenage years. Girls, at least, avoid this in the Third World.

“increased risk of infant and maternal mortality.”

This just is not true. Maternal mortality risk rises steadily with age, and is highest for the first birth. “Puerperal fatality [that is, death of the mother in childbirth] was at a minimum for the youngest mothers and increased very sharply with advancing age of mother,” notes a study done in New York State.

That means it is safest to have your first child when you are quite young; and this is more crucial in the Third World, where there is often little medical care available. The UN page claims the reverse, that younger women are more likely to die in childbirth--but it does not seem to have controlled for the fact that younger women are much more likely to be undergoing their first birth.

Maternal mortality risk is also correlated with nutrition—and one important advantage to marrying a much older man is that he is probably more financially established. If one truly cares for the life and health of Third World women, one should encourage the practice.

Increased vulnerablity to HIV and other STIs.

Once again, this is the reverse of the truth. The surest way to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases, next to lifelong chastity, is to marry young and stay monogamous.

Restricted social mobility-freedom of movement.

When a woman marries, she is out from under the control of her father, and mistress in her own home. At worst, she has a bossy mother-in-law to contend with instead of a bossy mother; but she has her husband as a possible ally against her. Probably in most cases a step up in terms of social mobility and freedom of movement.

Little access to modern media.

Again, one of the points of May-December marriage is that the husband will be more financially established, and so better able to support a wife and children. It follows, in case it is important, that the child bride will as a result have greater access to modern media than otherwise.

Lack of skills to be viable to the labour market.

She already has a job—wife and mother. It is a good job, and a well-paid one. Good jobs are rare in the Third World—jobs of any kind are rare in the Third World. Those that are available are almost entirely unskilled—and so she has the skills she needs in any case.

The page goes on to say, “The link is clear. It is no coincidence that the same countries ... that have high rates of child marriage are those with: high poverty rates, birth rates, and death rates.”

Yes, indeed, the link is clear—it is poor countries in which May-December marriages are most advantageous to both parties. Men cannot afford to support families until later in life. Women cannot afford to wait too long to have children, or the health risks become significant.

Greater incidence of conflict and civil strife.

This is a major cause of poverty everywhere. But it is also a good reason why it is not wise for a woman to remain single longer than necessary. She needs all the male protection she can get.

The UN page goes on to use the subhead “Disparities in Age and Power,” without explaining how these two things—age and power—might be related. In fact, a woman who is significantly younger than her husband, in the Third World, has a great deal of power over him as a direct result. Inevitably, in old age, should he survive that long, he will be wholly dependent on her. This becomes an overwhelming incentive to treat her well in youth.

My correspondent goes on to say “Your synopsis of feminism is also painfully underthought - the foundation of feminism is simply human rights- that no person, regardless of race, gender, age, should be systematically oppressed by another individual or group.”

Again, this is just about the opposite of the true foundation of feminism. Feminism has never been about equality. It was, in the first place, about enabling casual sex. It has since become about getting more for women under any circumstances, and suppressing the rights of men. It has also become quite actively racist, and hostile to all non-Western cultures.

As the current discussion shows.

Hear, O Israel!

Have you ever wondered what you would have done had you lived in Nazi Germany, with the Holocaust ongoing? Would you have been a Good German, or an Oskar Schindler? Have you ever wondered how you might have measured up to living in the US South in times of slavery? Would you have worked on the Underground Railroad—or owned slaves yourself?

There is no need to wonder. You can know. Answer this question quite simply: What are you doing now?

Because we are living now in time of Holocaust. We are living now in time of slavery. No exaggeration—indeed, worse now in numbers than in the US South, or in Nazi Germany.

The contemporary Holocaust is best-known: abortion. The abortion rate in 1995 was estimated at 46 million per year, worldwide. That is four times the number Hitler killed in all his death camps over his twelve-year reign.

But at least there are some protests. The slavery is barely even noticed.

The president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, has written, “If I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today, it is this: Do not marry and do not have children."

This is because the divorce courts, in Canada, the US, and the UK, effectively enslave divorced fathers and husbands. Baskerville, perhaps a little shrill, lists the following practices as widespread:

- incarcerations without trial or charge
- children asked to spy on parents
- parents being defamed to their own children
- parents forcibly and permanently separated from their children, though under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
- parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation
- government agents entering homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
- defendants denied the right to face their accusers
- bureaucrats authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against fathers, with no hearing and no due process
- parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration
- parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing stripped of their property and income, and reduced to penury
- government officials using the mass media to vilify private citizens

To run through the issue in simple terms, as I understand it: any married woman can unilaterally get a divorce, and claim spousal or child abuse at the same time. If she does, she gets his children, and can prevent the father from seeing them again until they are adults. She automatically gets the house, generally representing more or less everything he owned. He gets thrown out in the middle of the night with nothing. She can then force him to pay to support both her and the children from then on; she often need never work again. The amount can be greater than his total income. This is not an obligation he can avoid by declaring bankruptcy. If he does not or cannot pay, he is thrown in prison. Even if he does pay, she can, if she chooses, get restraining orders limiting his freedom of movement, destroying his reputation, or having him imprisoned.

Yes, for much of this, she must allege “abuse.” But even if her allegations are proven false, she faces no punishment. Even if she herself later confesses they are false, the court will take no notice. The father is still punished as if they were true.

No, this is not the way the law reads. But this is how the system actually works. Not now and then, but almost always.

It fits, I submit, the classic definition of slave or slavery in detail. American Heritage: “The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.” Oxford: “A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.” Encarta: “the practice of, or a system based on, using the enforced labor of other people.”

Most men will never see this happen—just as most slaves probably lived a fairly contented, comfortable life. But it is a matter of luck—their luck in having a partner who truly loves them; or at least, chooses to rule with a light touch. But it is entirely up to the will of the woman involved. This being true, whether or not they have been divorced, or threatened with divorce, in real terms, every man who is married and has children is already a slave. He always works, and lives, with a cocked gun at his head. It can go off at any time, should he stray out of line. All it takes is her picking up the phone.

But Dr. Baskerville is too naïve. He imagines a man can escape this simply by never marrying and having children. That is hardly enough. To begin with, he must certainly never have sex with a woman, in or out of wedlock, unless he has a vasectomy—the penalties are just as severe for a child born out of wedlock as for one born of marriage. He must never share an abode with a woman—any children she has then become his responsibility.

But this is not nearly enough. Suppose a woman wants to own him? She does not have to let him go free; he still has no choices. No problem—she can blackmail him into a relationship with the threat of a charge of sexual harassment.

She used to be able to claim rape. Even if he did not sleep with her, it would be a simply matter for her to sleep with someone else, to prove that sex had occurred. Then it’s his word against hers.

That particular avenue is no longer open, thanks to DNA testing. It is sobering to realize, though, that since DNA testing has been available, consistently, 25% of rape charges have been proven false on this ground alone.

And the man still has no defense if he actually did sleep with her. By consent.

But avoiding sex altogether is not going to work either. A sexual harassment charge is still available to her. She does not have to prove anything against him. Such charges go before Human Rights Tribunals and internal committees, Star Chambers where rules of evidence and due process need not be followed. I was at a talk recently at which a former school principal explained how it works. In the case of a charge of harassment, a Canadian principal has no choices and no decisions to make: “if a lady feels [i.e., claims] she has been harassed, she has been harassed.” Another former principal who was present agreed. There is no question of a man, once charged, being found not guilty, or getting off without some punishment. She described a fairly clear cut case in which an apparently entirely innocent gesture cost a young male teacher his job.

So any woman can still take down any man, for whatever reason, married, romantically involved, or just walking down the street.

For a man living in Canada, the US, Britain, or, I expect, most of the countries of Europe, there is only one solution, and Dr. Baskerville has not hit on it. It is the same solution available to Jews in Nazi Germany, or blacks in the USD South.

You must get out of the country. You must get out, and get out now. Once the worst happens, it will be too late. Once there is a support judgment against you, or your children have been taken, leaving the country will no longer help.

Even this will only work until the hegemony of modern feminism is complete worldwide—as it seeks aggressively to be.

Sadly, the unborn have no such option.